Where does the Church go from here?

[Elijah John]

Assuming the findings of the Historical Jesus scholars are correct, (that it is highly unlikely that Jesus ever claimed to be God) where does the Church go from here?

-Do orthodox Trinitarians simply ignore the findings of HJ scholars and continue to worship Jesus anyway?
-Do they integrate the findings and rework the Creeds and liturgy to more accurately reflect the reality that Jesus never asked for worship for himself, but only directed worship to our Heavenly Father?
-Do they continue with the Creeds and liturgy pretty much unchanged, but "interpret" them more symbolically?
-Or do they simply throw in the towel and disband?

If HJ scholars haven't already proven their case, they may well in the future. And if that indeed is the case, what is the best, and most likely course of action for the Church? The RCC, Eastern Orthodox and their Protestant offshoots.

Clerics and scholars such as Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong already seem to be wrestling with this. What do you consider the implications of Historical Jesus scholarship?

[Difflugia]

There is already plenty of room for this, even within a pretty narrow orthodoxy. If the kenosis of Philippians 2:7 is interpreted to mean that Jesus emptied himself of his divine knowledge, then Jesus may not have known his own divinity. As any apologist will tell you, just because Jesus didn't claim to be divine doesn't mean he wasn't. As long as the Holy Spirit made sure that he didn't actually say that he wasn't divine (or at least kept the evangelists from recording it if he did), then not much really has to change. Even if everyone everywhere suddenly agreed with secular biblical scholars on this one point, it's still a relatively minor doctrinal issue.

[Elijah John]

There is already plenty of room for this, even within a pretty narrow orthodoxy. If the kenosis of Philippians 2:7 is interpreted to mean that Jesus emptied himself of his divine knowledge, then Jesus may not have known his own divinity. As any apologist will tell you, just because Jesus didn't claim to be divine doesn't mean he wasn't. As long as the Holy Spirit made sure that he didn't actually say that he wasn't divine (or at least kept the evangelists from recording it if he did), then not much really has to change. Even if everyone everywhere suddenly agreed with secular biblical scholars on this one point, it's still a relatively minor doctrinal issue.

Point well taken. And a good defense of orthodoxy. But it should be noted that Borg and Spong are not secular, but both religious. Also, I'm pretty sure the consensus of HJ scholars (at least the religious ones) is that there is a distinction between the Historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". "Christ" is an elevated being, (whether really ascended or only in the minds of believers) and not really God Himself. "Christ" was made Divine, (but never supremely Divine) at the resurrection. Only John (among the Gospel Evangelists) considered him Divine from the beginning.

Also, if Jesus never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries considered him God-in-the-flesh, then what evidence remains to consider him God? But even if he did convince his contemporaries to call him God, that would only prove that both he and they believed it. Nothing more.

[Difflugia]

Point well taken. And a good defense of orthodoxy.

Thank you.

But it should be noted that Borg and Spong are not secular, but both religious.

You're right, certainly in Marcus Borg's case. I have to admit, though, that I find John Spong's idea of Christianity to be a bit too broad to be meaningful, even though I'm normally willing to take just about anybody's word for it.

Also, I'm pretty sure the consensus of HJ scholars (at least the religious ones) is that there is a distinction between the Historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". "Christ" is an elevated being, (whether really ascended or only in the minds of believers) and not really God Himself. "Christ" was made Divine, (but never supremely Divine) at the resurrection. Only John (among the Gospel Evangelists) considered him Divine from the beginning.

I absolutely agree with you and you're "preaching to the choir," as it were. I'm still not fully convinced that the Historical Jesus was real (or at least knowable), but I don't think that's necessarily fatal to Christianity. I think there are signs that all four evangelists knowingly wrote what we would now consider fiction, but nonetheless believed in some form of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, that's not too difficult for me to emotionally reconcile as a non-Christian myself, but I don't really expect broad agreement with me.

Also, if Jesus never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries considered him God-in-the-flesh, then what evidence remains to consider him God? But even if he did convince his contemporaries to call him God, that would only prove that both he and they believed it. Nothing more.

That God arranged things so that the life and death of Jesus Christ would later be recognized for its power of salvation?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here and I know what you're saying, but I'd offer as an analog, the Jewish faith of Richard Elliott Friedman. Friedman (if you don't know) is a scholar of the Documentary Hypothesis. He makes clear in his books and scholarship that he has a full understanding of the human process through which the Pentateuch came about and the very human conflicts between its various authorial sources. On the other hand, he sees the very hand of God within the composition and is a practicing Jew. If you have the time, inclination, and access to them, I recommend reading his Commentary on the Torah alongside any of his more scholarly works, like Who Wrote the Bible. It's almost like they weren't written by the same person.

[Charles]

Assuming the findings of the Historical Jesus scholars are correct....

Sorry, no can do - it is too great a leap of faith for me to go from Jesus to them...

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I think the Church will try all those things you mentioned. Since it has not been truly interested in spreading religious truth from the very beginning, the Church will not ever throw in the towel, but think of ways to keep their hands on the people.

The Bible tells us that false religion will be active right up to the end, when the governments will turn on "her" (Babylon the Great) and destroy her. That is where the Church will go from here.

.

[onewithhim]

There is already plenty of room for this, even within a pretty narrow orthodoxy. If the kenosis of Philippians 2:7 is interpreted to mean that Jesus emptied himself of his divine knowledge, then Jesus may not have known his own divinity. As any apologist will tell you, just because Jesus didn't claim to be divine doesn't mean he wasn't. As long as the Holy Spirit made sure that he didn't actually say that he wasn't divine (or at least kept the evangelists from recording it if he did), then not much really has to change. Even if everyone everywhere suddenly agreed with secular biblical scholars on this one point, it's still a relatively minor doctrinal issue.

I very much doubt that Jesus would've emptied himself of all knowledge---divine or not. That is a lame way to say that Jesus was really God. He FORGOT that he was God!! LOL! Please.


.

[onewithhim]

There is already plenty of room for this, even within a pretty narrow orthodoxy. If the kenosis of Philippians 2:7 is interpreted to mean that Jesus emptied himself of his divine knowledge, then Jesus may not have known his own divinity. As any apologist will tell you, just because Jesus didn't claim to be divine doesn't mean he wasn't. As long as the Holy Spirit made sure that he didn't actually say that he wasn't divine (or at least kept the evangelists from recording it if he did), then not much really has to change. Even if everyone everywhere suddenly agreed with secular biblical scholars on this one point, it's still a relatively minor doctrinal issue.

Point well taken. And a good defense of orthodoxy. But it should be noted that Borg and Spong are not secular, but both religious. Also, I'm pretty sure the consensus of HJ scholars (at least the religious ones) is that there is a distinction between the Historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". "Christ" is an elevated being, (whether really ascended or only in the minds of believers) and not really God Himself. "Christ" was made Divine, (but never supremely Divine) at the resurrection. Only John (among the Gospel Evangelists) considered him Divine from the beginning.

Also, if Jesus never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries considered him God-in-the-flesh, then what evidence remains to consider him God? But even if he did convince his contemporaries to call him God, that would only prove that both he and they believed it. Nothing more.

But the thing is---he DIDNT try to convince his contemporaries that he was God. So many times he cast all goodness and power onto the Father, not himself. He repeatedly said that it was God, the Father, working through him.


.

[brianbbs67]

Well for one, I was never taught to worship any but YHVH. So that ends that. Yeshua surely did exist as Josephus documented it. First time in Latin and Greek in the first century and 1500 years later in English. I own the English version. He's there for sure.(Yeshua) Antiquities of the Jews.